Abstract

Advancements in statistical ecology offer the opportunity to gain further inferences from existing data with minimal financial cost. Spatial capture-recapture (SCR) models extend traditional capture-recapture models to incorporate spatial position of capture and enable direct estimation of animal densities across a region of interest. The additional inferences provided are both ecologically interesting and valuable for decision making, which has resulted in traditional capture-recapture data being repurposed using SCR. Yet, many capture-recapture studies were not designed for SCR and the limitations of repurposing data from such studies are rarely assessed in practice. We used simulation to evaluate the robustness of SCR for retrospectively estimating large mammal densities over a variety of scenarios using repurposed capture-recapture data collected by an asymmetrical sampling grid and covering a broad spatial extent in a heterogenous landscape. We found performance of SCR models fit using repurposed data simulated from the existing grid was not robust, but instead bias and precision of density estimates varied considerably among simulations scenarios. For example, while the smallest relatives bias of density estimates was 3%, it ranged by 14 orders of magnitude among scenarios and was most strongly influenced by detection parameters. Our results caution against the casual repurposing of non-spatial capture-recapture data using SCR and demonstrate the importance of using simulation to assessing model performance during retrospective applications.

Highlights

  • The spatial extent of the trapping array was defined by the boundaries of three bear management units in the northern Lower Peninsula (NLP) used by Michigan Department of Natural Resources, which encompass the latitudinal area between Mackinaw City and Muskegon, MI (Fig 1)

  • Performance of Spatial capture-recapture (SCR) density estimators under the existing study design was not robust across plausible values of model parameters represented by our simulation scenarios

  • The absolute value of bias of bear density estimates ranged over 14 orders of magnitude among scenarios, from 0.03–6.6 x 1012, and the coefficient of variation of density estimates ranged from 1–975%; only 6% of our simulated density estimates were < 5% biased and only half of all scenarios had a CV < 10% (Table 1)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call